IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default?

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Wed, 29 January 2020 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C977C120088 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 06:40:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W4O_xtlf5ruY for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 06:40:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 842CF12011A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 2020 06:40:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.local (089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 00TEe1jQ019944 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 29 Jan 2020 14:40:02 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
Subject: Re: Disabling temporary addresses by default?
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <CAKD1Yr11_SSUkCBuQ3-h+eRg0LPZQdhe+h7f0YZy9TiyRWj6mw@mail.gmail.com> <751D59E0-F60B-4FE1-840F-3FEAB82F618F@huitema.net> <c058863d-9e29-3ddb-a020-0ebadef26ad4@si6networks.com> <CABNhwV0KsKN7LQY2D-BJkCtvB40oZCT65EmOCr0oE56c9g7-aQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr05GqFr1r018qHZev8SB6Gd=zm_45TtuShQH_5PVkXpKw@mail.gmail.com> <56BD2286-D761-44EF-812B-82BAFB380992@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr23BOEQztLyxu8BF4ivVCmX-Aspv6XfAMUHNR=iDp7uKg@mail.gmail.com> <83FE7A0B-DB50-47CB-85DA-507A33CFCD37@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr2xE4C3xaXP=b-sxKGV_CnQugjpOVe_xUpRW1sSoLNGCg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <f1bd6e0a-3408-3b0e-963f-7041eff578e9@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 14:39:11 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2xE4C3xaXP=b-sxKGV_CnQugjpOVe_xUpRW1sSoLNGCg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/kshFgWqN2n6bhR6UH7P3F37rZXw>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 14:40:17 -0000

Lorenzo Colitti wrote on 29/01/2020 11:59:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:54 PM <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> 
>      > I'm saying using temporary addresses makes a number of attacks,
>     including cross-site tracking, more difficult, infeasible, or
>     defeatable by the employee or IT admin. If you believe that to be
>     false, you can always try to see if you can get consensus on a
>     document that says that privacy addresses are not useful and
>     declares RFC 4941 historic. :-)
> 
>     Anything you can cite here?
> 
> RFC 4941 section 2.1?

wasn't Ole looking for data rather than canon?

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email